CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  BOOKSTACKS 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  borrowed  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft/  mutilation/  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

TO  RENEW  CALL  TELEPHONE  CENTER,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


m i>  t i$m 

'•APR- 24- 


1.  KM  t'4 


Cla 


m M u 8 1994 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date  below 
previous  due  date.  L162 


[Reprinted  from  A.  L.  A.  Bulletin,  Conference  Number,  1911 ] 


THE  ACADEMIC  STANDING  OF  COLLEGE  LIBRARY  ASSISTANTS  AND 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  THE  CARNEGIE  FOUNDATION  * 

By  W.  E.  HENRY,  Librarian  of  the  University  of  Washington  Library 


In  taking  up  this  topic  for  consideration 
we  must  realize  that  we  are  dealing  with 
| a new  profession  in  educational  work,  that 
j this  profession  is  an  outgrowth  of  new 
! conceptions  in  educational  materials  and 
/processes  and  that  the  terms  and  condi- 
i tions  are  fixed  by  these  materials  and 
j processes.  We  must,  therefore,  treat 
' briefly  certain  origins  before  coming  spe- 
| cifically  to  the  apparent  topic. 

This  new  relationship  expressed  in  the 
i words  “college  library  assistant”  came 
upon  us  unawares  as  a part  of  recent  evo- 
I lution  in  the  conceptions  of  education — 
new  conceptions  of  studentship  and  schol- 
arship. 

I This  new  learning  of  less  than  fifty 
| years  is  characterized  by  broad  scope, 
i searching  investigation,  infinite  detail, 

I first  hand  authority  and  such  variety  as 
i would  have  been  bewildering  a few  years 
j earlier.  The  old  learning  wrote  the  natu- 
| ral  history  of  the  world  from  Adam;  the 
) new  learning  writes  volumes  on  bacteriob 
ogy,  and  the  new  library  is  as  unlike  the 
old  as  the  books  they  contain.  They  pre- 
sent precisely  the  same  differences. 

The  type  of  student  that  uses  books  and 
in  turn  produces  them  is  less  than  half  a 
century  old.  The  mass  of  books  that  con- 
stitute the  working  collection  of  most 
American  college  libraries  have  been  writ- 
ten since  the  American  library  association 
held  its  first  session  in  1876.  The  “new 
learning”  covers  the  half  century  after 
1860.  In  1876  there  were  but  three  college 
libraries  in  America  that  contained  more 
than  45,000  volumes  each;  only  one  pos- 
sessed more  than  100,000  volumes.  Very 
few  professors  placed  Ph.D.  after  their 
names  in  the  college  catalog,  and  this 
growth  of  these  two  facts  since  then  may 
be  traced  side  by  side  as  interchanging 
cause  and  effect — a new  studentship  and  a 
new  library.  The  new  learning  demanded 
detailed  information  “ready  to  serve  hot,” 
therefore  a new  well-organized  library. 
7he  new  library  is  a hundred  times  more 


varied  than  the  old.  The  more  varied  li- 
brary has  the  greater  variety  of  function 
and  demands  more  perfect  organization  as 
in  all  forms  of  organic  life.  This  higher 
type  and  more  complex  organization  origi- 
nates the  demand  for  the  modern  library 
assistant,  and  fixes  the  condition  in  educa- 
tion and  training. 

In  the  old  college  library  there  were 
relatively  few  subjects,  few  authors, 
few  investigations,  few  readers,  few  de- 
mands of  any  kind.  The  new  learning 
fixed  the  standards  for  the  new  profession. 
Breadth  of  scholarship,  detail  of  informa- 
tion, cosmopolitan  and  comprehensive, 
were  demanded,  and  all  of  it  ready  on  call. 
Compare  the  college  curriculum  of  1876 
with  that  of  the  present.  The  librarian 
in  the  old  college  library  becomes  the  staff 
in  the  new;  one  becomes  many,  and  the 
college  library  assistant  comes  into  being. 

In  the  older  pedagogy  the  teacher  did 
mere  textbook  recitation  work  or  occa- 
sionally did  worse  by  lecturing,  but  there 
was  almost  no  thought  of  bibliographical 
work  in  connection  with  the  recitation  as- 
signments. He  needed  no  library  service, 
hence  no  library  nor  librarian.  The  new 
pedagogy  values  the  work  done  in  the  li- 
brary as  quite  as  vital  and  more  informing 
than  that  of  the  class  room.  No  subject 
is  well  treated  now  until  a fair  bibliog- 
raphy of  the  subject  is  mastered.  Here  the 
librarian  is  quite  as  necessary  as  the 
teacher  and  quite  as  helpful.  Neither 
could  do  his  work  without  the  other.  Co- 
operation has  become  a necessity,  and  the 
preparation  of  the  two  is  essentially  simi- 
lar, in  slightly  different  directions,  but 
complementary.  The  library  staff  must  be 
the  equals  in  scholarship  and  preparation 
of  the  faculty  of  any  one  academic  depart- 
ment, and  if  it  is  not  so  the  library  will  fall 
short  of  the  work  that  ought  to  be  done  in 
cooperative  education. 

The  reference  librarian  must  needs  pos- 
sess a larger  grasp  of  information  than  is 
expected  of  any  professor,  for  this  member 


* Reprinted  and  distributed  by  vote  of  the  College  and  reference  section  of  the  American  Library  Association. 


of  the  staff  must  know  in  general  all  that 
all  the  faculty  knows  in  detail.  The  lend- 
ing librarian,  if  she  does  her  whole  duty, 
must  know  the  book  resources  as  well  as 
the  combined  faculty  knows  them.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  girl  who  can  measure 
ribbon  over  the  counter  at  three  dollars 
per  week  can  hand  out  books  at  the  same 
price.  My  own  belief  is  that  the  readiest 
and  best  informed  mind  as  well  as  the  best 
business  head  in  the  staff  is  none  too  good 
for  the  loan  desk,  and  the  work  of  other 
departments  could  be  shown  relatively  as 
important  in  the  particular  fields. 

The  member  of  the  faculty  obtains  his 
rank  in  part  because  of  his  academic  prep- 
aration, and  in  part  because  he  has  to  do 
with  directing  the  education  of  others.  His 
work  in  the  education  of  others  is  some- 
times in  the  actual  processes  of  teaching, 
— the  hearing  of  recitations,  lecturing,  di- 
recting the  reading,  or  it  may  be  largely  in 
mere  administrative  work.  This  rank, 
so  f^r  as  it  depends  upon  academic  prepa- 
ration is  usually  indicated  by  a degree 
granted  from  some  institution.  This  de- 
gree means  that  he  has  completed  a cer- 
tain course  of  instruction  but  does  not  in- 
dicate that  he  can  do  any  particular  kind 
or  grade  of  service.  In  short,  his  rank  is 
evidence  of  scholarly  relationship.  Meas- 
ured by  these  tests,  which  I believe  to  be 
fair,  the  members  of  the  library  staff  bear 
a very  similar  relation  to  educational  ac- 
tivities. We  do  not  think  of  a college  li- 
brary assistant  coming  to  his  position  on 
the  staff  on  any  other  basis  than  one  of 
general  scholarship,  and  not  usually  with- 
out some  special  training  for  the  work  he 
assumes,  either  in  a library  training  school 
or  valuable  experience  in  a well-managed 
library.  The  professor  has  not  usually  a 
training  for  his  work  as  a teacher,  how- 
ever much  he  may  have  in  scholarship. 
The  library  assistant  is  not  usually  a 
teacher  in  the  sense  of  a hearer  of  recita- 
tions or  a formal  lecturer,  yet  anyone  who 
knows  his  real  work  must  admit  that  it  is 
frequently  as  personal  and  quite  as  scho- 
lastically helpful  as  that  done  by  the 
teacher.  If  this  equality  does  not  exist 
then  the  staff  should  be  revised.  With 
such  preparation  and  such  relationship  to 
the  educational  processes  I shall  claim 
that  the  library  staff  must  rank  with  the 
faculty  or  teaching  staff  of  any  depart- 
ment. The  librarian  or  head  of  the  staff 
should  have  the  rank  and  pay  of  a pro- 
fessor; the  assistant  librarian,  if  such  a 


title  for  a distinct  position  exists,  should 
be  accorded  the  rank  and  pay  of  an  asso- 
ciate professor;  and  the  other  members  of 
the  staff  that  of  assistant  professor  or  in- 
structor, this  to  be  determined  by  the 
nature  of  the  work,  the  preparation  and 
particular  ability  required;  and  those  not 
fitted  to  so  rank  should  not  be  members 
of  the  staff  but  some  other  name  should 
be  adopted. 

I am  sure  that  this  doctrine  will  sound 
a bit  revolutionary  and  somewhat  like  the 
closed  shop  to  persons  who  have  been  ac- 
customed to  think  of  the  library  staff 
along  with  janitors  and  scrubwomen,  but 
to  me  librarianship  is  a learned  profession 
and  in  college  must  rank  with  the  teaching 
profession.  As  before  defined,  I do  not  in- 
clude in  the  library  staff  mere  student  as- 
sistants uneducated  and  untrained  persons 
in  the  most  subordinate  position.  The  staff 
must  be  respected  as  educators  by  the  fac- 
ulty, not  merely  for  the  satisfaction  of  the 
staff  but  for  the  good  of  the  library  in  its 
power  for  efficiency. 

It  would  have  been  infinitely  more  fort- 
unate for  colleges  in  their  library  adminis- 
tration if  instead  of  the  word  “librarian” 
the  title  Professor  of  books  and  reading 
had  been  substituted  as  suggested  in  the 
“Special  report  on  public  libraries”  in  1876. 
Mr.  Perkins  in  that  report  emphasizes  the 
doctrine  that  the  office  of  librarian  shall 
be  “a  professorship  teaching  method,”  not 
subject;  how  to  discover,  not  what  to  dis- 
cover. Mr.  Matthews  in  the  same  report, 
bore  upon  the  thesis  that  the  college 
should  provide  “a  professor  to  assist  the 
student.”  These  men  back  in  the  early 
age  of  modern  librarianship  outlined  pre- 
cisely the  duty  of  a modern  college  li- 
brary staff — to  assist  the  student  in  the 
method  of  discovery.  Each  member  of  a 
well  organized  staff  holds  a professorship 
or  an  instructorship  in  the  department  of 
books  and  reading. 

As  I have  thought  over  the  peculiar  mis- 
sion of  each  member  of  the  staff  I am  per- 
suaded that  each  is  vitally  essential  to  the 
work  of  the  professorship  of  books  and 
reading.  The  person  who  selects  the  book, 
the  one  who  catalogs  it,  is  just  as  vitally, 
though  less  directly,  helping  the  student  as 
is  the  one  who  hands  him  the  book  with 
the  page  designated. 

Then,  in  the  department  of  books  and 
reading  we  have  precisely  the  relationship 
and  must  demand  the  scholarship  and  spe 
chic  training  as  is  demanded  in  the  depart-  . 


2 


ents  of  history,  English,  German,  or  en- 
gineering. The  library  staff  must  rank 
with  the  teaching  staff  of  a given  depart- 
ment, for  the  instructor  and  guide  in  meth- 
od of  scholarship  bears  the  same  vital  re- 
lation to  the  education  of  the  student  as 
does  the  guide  in  matters  of  scholarship. 

For  comparative  relations  the  term  “Pro- 
fessor of  books  and  reading”  is  much  more 
significant  than  “Librarian,”  for  the  latter 
term  has  brought  with  it  the  suggestion  of 
the  inactive  police  relation  of  a keeper  of 
books,  while  the  former  has  in  it  the  impli- 
cation of  active  help — of  progressive  edu- 
cational purpose.  I do  not  mean  that  it 
would  be  wise  to  change  the  name  of  this 
office  in  the  college  catalog,  but  I use  it 
here  with  the  hope  that  I may  make  the 
relationship  clearer  and  thereby  place  the 
library  staff  where  I think  it  belongs  in  ed- 
ucational economy. 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  individual  per- 
sons or  positions  as  to  requirement  it  is 
clear  that  so  far  there  exists  no  uniform- 
ity of  appreciation  or  organization  within 
the  college  library  staff.  We  are  not 
agreed  among  ourselves  as  to  how  many 
and  what  departments  naturally  and  logi- 
cally exist,  and  the  term  “Head  of  the 
Department”  has  a great  variety  of  indefi- 
nite meanings.  There  is  likewise  no  de- 
fined notion  as  to  the  essential  require- 
ments for  heads  of  certain  departments, 
there  is  neither  uniformity  nor  consistency 
of  names  for  college  library  assistants; 
and  finally  there  is  no  fixed  conception  as 
to  just  what  constitutes  a library  staff. 
Does  staff  include  only  heads  of  depart- 
ments with  the  librarian,  or  does  it  include 
assistants  in  the  departments  as  well  as 
student  assistants  or  even  pages?  These 
questions  must  be  answered  and  the  no- 
menclature fixed  before  the  questions  of 
this  paper  can  be  fully  and  satisfactorily 
answered.  We  shall  not  be  ranked  out- 
side of  the  staff  until  we  rank  within  it. 
If,  however,  we  desire  and  expect  the  li- 
brary staff  to  rank  with  the  teaching  staff 
of  a department  we  must  demand  acade- 
mic and  professional  preparation  and  a 
kind  and  quality  of  work  that  will  com- 
mand respect  from  the  faculty  and  from 
others  having  knowledge  of  college  rank 
^nd  standing.  Their  work  must  be  pro- 
fessional and  educational. 

Admission  to  the  staff  of  a college  li- 
brary must  demand  at  least  the  bachelor’s 
degree  and  added  thereto  should  be  the 
training  of  a library  school  preferably  cul- 


minating in  a professional  degree;  or,  in 
lieu  of  school  training,  such  experience 
in  library  work  as  shall  leave  no  question 
of  capacity  or  efficiency. 

It  is  true  that  in  a large  staff  there  is 
much  petty  detail  that,  for  economic  rea- 
sons, well  prepared  people  cannot  afford 
to  perform.  A considerable  per  cent  of 
any  large  staff  will  be  composed  of  lower 
grade  relatively  untrained  persons  who 
cannot  and  ought  not  attain  to  faculty 
rank.  These  I should  not  consider  as 
members  of  the  staff  but  should  provide 
some  other  title  such  as  helper  or  attend- 
ant, and  let  that  title  become  definite  and 
fixed. 

Let  us  make  our  staff  a very  specific  and 
very  exclusive  body  clearly  defined  in  the 
minds  of  all  having  official  relation  to  the 
institution.  Let  the  line  be  distinctly 
drawn  but  not  snobbishly  maintained.  Let 
us  classify  closely  on  the  basis  of  prepa- 
ration and  demonstrated  efficiency  and 
then  be  exacting  in  our  nomenclature.  I 
have  pointed  out  upon  purely  historical 
and  theoretical  grounds  what  should  be 
the  academic  rank  of  the  college  library 
assistant.  I shall  briefly  state  the  theory 
of  this  same  assistant’s  relation  to  the  Car- 
negie Foundation  for  the  Advancement  of 
Teaching  and  follow  up  this  theoretical 
statement  with  a few  facts  as  to  what  con- 
ditions do  actually  prevail  with  regard  to 
both  of  these  questions  in  a dozen  repre- 
sentative institutions  in  all  parts  of  the 
country. 

Whatever  reasons  may  have  prevailed 
for  admitting  teachers  in  any  college  or 
university  faculty  to  retiring  allowances 
from  the  Carnegie  Foundation  are  equally 
valid  when  applied  to  the  library  staff,  not 
perhaps  as  it  is  now  constituted  in  many 
cases,  but  as  above  defined.  If  present  af- 
fluence be  the  measure  then  I am  sure  the 
librarian  has  equal  claim  with  the  profes- 
sor. If  the  insufficiency  of  salary  either  in 
fact  or  in  prospect  be  taken  in  evidence 
then  I am  sure  no  professor  could  urge  a 
stronger  claim  than  can  the  library  assist- 
ant. If  a long  and  faithful  service  be  a 
condition,  then  the  library  staff  must  stand 
side  by  side  with  the  professor  inviting  the 
generosity  of  the  Foundation.  If  single- 
ness of  purpose  and  devoted  service  be  the 
test  then  the  library  assistant  admits  no 
superior.  If  scholarly  requirements  and 
extensive  preparation  are  to  be  considered 
evidence  of  fitness  there  is  no  difference. 
As  valiant  and  efficient  helpers  in  the  pro- 


3 


cess  and  progress  of  higher  education  I 
know  of  no  claim  that  will  admit  one  to 
the  privileges  of  the  Foundation  and  deny 
the  same  to  the  other. 

From  any  point  of  view  I cannot  see  a 
single  argument  that  will  admit  the  assist- 
ant professor  and  the  instructor  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  foundation  that  will  deny 
the  library  assistant  when  the  library  staff 
shall  be  composed  on  as  high  standards  of 
efficiency  as  the  teaching  staff.  It  then 
becomes  the  business  of  the  college  libra- 
rians to  define  carefully,  through  the  exec- 
utive authorities  of  the  colleges,  the  library 
staff  and  the  qualifications  demanded,  and 
to  see  to  it  that  only  such  persons  are  ad- 
mitted. 

What  conditions  now  prevail  in  college 
libraries?  In  preparing  this  paper  I tried 
to  collect  facts  from  college  and  univer- 
sity libraries  covering  the  entire  country 
form  east  to  west,  including  both  state  and 
endowed  institutions.  From  seventeen  in- 
quiries I had  sixteen  replies  for  which  I 
sincerely  thank  the  responding  libraries. 
Only  about  43  per  cent  of  those  persons 
now  holding  positions  as  college  library  as- 
sistants hold  even  baccalaureate  degrees. 
About  20  per  cent  have  had  some  library 
school  training,  a considerable  proportion 
of  these  hold  the  B.  L.  S.  degree. 

As  to  faculty  rank  it  appears  that  the 
librarian  usually  has  the  rank  of  a pro- 
fessor. Below  the  librarian  all  sorts  of 
conditions  prevail.  In  one  instance  all 
members  of  the  staff  are  considered  mem- 
bers of  the  faculty,  yet  less  than  half  of 
them  have  any  degree.  The  reference  li- 
brarian ranks  as  instructor,  and  all  below 
him  rank  with  the  lowest  grade  of  the 
teaching  force.  I do  not  find  what  that 
rank  is.  Below  the  librarian  and  a first 
assistant  there  seems  to  be  no  faculty  rank 
in  most  cases.  With  the  above  figures  as 
to  preparation  it  is  not  at  all  surprising 
that  most  assistants  have  no  rank. 

As  to  the  relation  to  the  Carnegie  Foun- 
dation, usually  the  librarian  and  assistant 
seem  to  be  eligible  to  a retiring  allowance, 
as  these  usually  have  some  professional 
rank.  However,  the  term  “assistant  libra- 
rian” is  used  without  discrimination.  In 
some  instances  it  means  a specific  rank 
next  the  head  of  the  staff,  but  in  quite  a 
number  of  cases  it  seems  to  apply  to 
almost  any  person  working  in  the  library. 
The  library  assistant  is  so  far  scarcely 
considered. 

For  reasons  of  internal  organization  and 


external  respect  and  proper  standing,  I 
am  convinced  we  must  standardize  our 
college  libraries  just  as  the  colleges  and 
universities  are  being  standardized  under 
the  guiding  and  commanding  influence  of 
the  Carnegie  Foundation.  I wish  that 
some  one  would  recommend  that  a com- 
mittee from  this  organization  might  be 
appointed  to  take  up  the  work  of  standard- 
izing the  college  library  force,  and  make 
recommendations  as  to  staff  organizations, 
qualifications  of  members  of  the  staff  and 
nomenclature  that  some  time  in  the  fu- 
ture we  may  have  a common  language. 

I can  bring  to  you  at  this  time  three 
guiding  facts  for  our  future  action;  the 
ruling  of  the  Foundation  itself  and  the 
action  of  two  of  our  leading  universities 
— Columbia  and  Harvard.  That  portion  of 
rule  five  of  the  Carnegie  Foundation  which 
provides  for  librarians  participating  in  the 
retiring  allowance  reads  as  follows:  “Li- 
brarians, registrars,  recorders,  and  admin- 
istrative officers  of  long  tenure  whose  sal- 
aries may  be  classed  with  those  of  profes- 
sors are  considered  eligible  to  the  benefits 
of  a retiring  allowance.”  Now,  whether 
librarian  means  head  of  the  staff  only,  or 
whether  it  means  a number  of  persons 
doing  the  higher  quality  of  library  work 
may  be  questioned  since  some  assistants 
in  libraries  have  been  granted  allowances. 
Yet  in  a letter  from  the  secretary  of  the 
Foundation  under  date  of  April  1,  1911, 
this  sentence  occurs,  “Ordinarily  we  have 
not  considered  that  assistant  librarians 
might  count  their  service  toward  a retir- 
ing allowance,”  yet  later  in  the  same  letter 
this  writer  makes  the  possible  exception 
of  such  large  libraries  as  Columbia  and 
Harvard. 

The  Harvard  rules  for  retiring  allow- 
ances specify  that  “librarians  and  assist- 
ant librarians”  are  covered  by  the  provis- 
ion. Assistant  librarian  at  Harvard  is  hot 
a specific  single  position  but  applies  to 
two  persons  of  equal  rank. 

The  Columbia  university  trustees  on 
February  6 of  this  year  provided  as  fol- 
lows: “The  librarian  shall  have  the  rank 
of  professor,  the  assistant  librarian  that  of 
associate  professor,  and  the  supervisors 
(with  grade  of  assistant  librarian)  shall 
rank  as  assistant  professors  and  bibliogra-, 
phers  as  instructors.”  The  action  of  these! 
two  great  leading  universities  is  so  specifici 
and  well  defined  and  apparently  so  just  I\ 
quote  from  them  as  a guide  which  the  rest 
of  us  may  follow  if  even  at  some  distance. 


4 


